I'm sure everyone has heard that R.E.M. is letting people get to the premiere of their new album,
Accelerate via the
iLike Facebook Application.
Of course, this is an attempt to keep casual downloaders from not paying for the album by allowing them to stream it (but not keep it) prior to its' April 1 release date. Streaming, of course, was popularized by Internet Radio stations, both webcasts of indie stations, and sites like Pandora and Last.Fm.
Now, the IFPI and RIAA fought tooth and nail with the U.S. Copyright Office to have royalties for streaming media raised to the point where if they are allowed to stay at current levels, internet radio stations like Pandora and Last.fm (which introduce people to new music based on their tastes) as well as independent webcast stations could die off based on the sheer absurdity of the rates, while terrestrial radio, the "old guard" of the Payola generation, pays next to nothing for broadcasting that same music over the public airwaves.
A justification for this is that you can create a perfect digital copy from a streamed song, while you can only make an analogue audio tape, with no metadata off the radio.
BBC2 had a short segment this morning on R.E.M. and iLike, here is a rough, rough transcript via TVEyes:
...digital opened up many new ways the record companies can take their music to fans and this is one example. this is through a service called iLike and music is a social thing, people define themselves by it and it is one of the things you talk about with your friends and sharing it is a great way to do it. this is a way of sharing music legally with other friends and you can post it on your blog or Facebook and do other things with it...
...this is a new model for record companies to take music out there. can they make money out of it? this is a licenceed legal service and what the music business is trying to do against a backdrop of most music being available for free illegally, the record companies are trying to licence as many new services as possible to give music fans an option, because that's what we want. we want more ways for music fans to get their music. that's what the record companies would like. that's the message they would like to send out. nobody really knows. once it is available, it is available and you are trying to convince people to pay for it...a lot of artists realise you don't need a record label, you can say ""i can make it available myself.""
very few artists can do this. rem have done this through their record company. record companies and artists can do these things and use the new digital services. what does it mean for music? do you think it is good for a band that doesn't have a label, can go out and get people listening to their music?
I see some sad double-talk here. On one hand, the labels wants to allow streaming over the 'net when they see fit, but when 'Net Radio took off, they rushed to extract every dollar out of it because they saw it compromising their existing distribution networks. Not illegally, but in the sense that in that world, they lack their traditional influence in what gets pushed to the top of the DJ's "record stack." So, with the help of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, they want to replace 'net radio, especially independent stations and services like Last.Fm and Pandora (which actually drive record sales by pushing new music to consumers based on their tastes) out of business, because it imperils their vertical model of middle-manning that has been in place for the past fifty years.
On the other hand, when streaming is done through iLike and the label can tell the consumer that they're going to hear, what is hot, and what they should be streaming (and later buying) instead of offering choice, everything is great. Note that iLike doesn't get hit by those royalty rates.
Also, don't overlook Facebook's role. They see themselves as a great content gatekeeper here. Notice how they partner with the mainstream (ABC with Politics, iLike/R.E.M./Warner Brothers with Music) in order to get themselves a patina of respectability with "old media?" Just like Jonathan Zittrain (more as I read his book and can talk more about it) I see Facebook becoming more and more an old-fashioned service in the model of CompuServe, Prodigy or AOL where they become the content service. Forgot Sara Lacy's flirty talk of a "Facebook record label." Facebook doesn't need to be the label, they just need to be the label's pet streaming platform, maybe they can build a non-iTunes MP3 download service onto a Facebook app. They also get to be the pet advertising platform for Amazon's CD sales, and Hot Topic merchandise sales.
Facebook is becoming less and less of a tool for me to keep up with my friends and more of a rolodex with a built-in advertising platform. I used to be able to export my data to Outlook, but now they disabled that and denied the feature ever existed. Instead of value-added features, they provide vendor lock-in. I can only see my data when I choose to see their ads, and they can use my data, my "social graph" however they want.
Forget all those "privacy controls" from last week. They mean nothing. What matters is that no matter who you allow to view parts of your "profile," Facebook still owns the data and is using it to let advertisers profile and target you, all while they become a modern day gatekeeper for all types of media. They're propping up the old guard in the hopes that it will give them a revenue stream as the next big things get killed off by royalties.
I will also be investigating the case of the missing "Export" button this week before Tech Policy Summit, and you can be sure I will be asking around about Data Portability.
Happy Easter Monday!
Stanford Daily has a nice 
